Catherine A. Haber

The respondent father sought costs following several court attendances arising from an unsuccessful urgent motion brought by the applicant mother concerning temporary parenting arrangements for young children.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and found the father was entirely successful on the motion, having obtained equal time-sharing while the mother’s request for temporary custody was dismissed.

The court concluded the urgent motion was unjustified and that the mother adopted an unnecessarily confrontational litigation strategy, while the father’s conduct was reasonable and settlement-focused.

Considering success, settlement offers, litigation conduct, and proportionality, the court awarded significant partial indemnity costs but declined to award costs for the case conference.

On a temporary parenting motion following the parties’ separation and imminent sale of the matrimonial home, the applicant sought temporary sole custody with limited access for the respondent.

The respondent sought equal parenting time and opposed any custodial designation at this early stage.

The court emphasized that interim parenting determinations are based on incomplete and untested evidence and should preserve the children’s best interests while avoiding strategic creation of a status quo.

Finding both parents capable and historically involved in caregiving, the court concluded that shared parenting most closely reflected the pre‑separation arrangement.

A temporary equal time‑sharing schedule was ordered to maintain the children’s emotional bonds with both parents pending further proceedings.

The applicant mother brought a motion for sole custody and primary residence of the parties' two young children, along with full table child support.

The respondent father sought sole custody and a variable parenting schedule based on his work as a pilot, with set-off child support.

The court found that both parents were capable and loving but exhibited high conflict and poor communication.

The court ordered shared (parallel) custody, dividing decision-making responsibilities between the parents, and established a fixed, predictable parenting schedule to provide stability for the children.

The father was ordered to pay full table child support and his proportionate share of section 7 daycare expenses.

The applicant mother sought costs following successful motions regarding custody, access, and child support.

The respondent father opposed the costs award and argued for a substantially reduced amount.

The court awarded costs to the successful applicant but declined to award costs on a full indemnity basis, citing the failure of both parties to serve offers to settle.

The court fixed costs at $10,000.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $250 per month commencing May 1, 2012.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order that struck her constructive trust claims on the basis of res judicata stemming from a consent order in Ireland.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that conflicting evidence regarding the scope of the Irish consent order and the respondent's domicile must be resolved at trial.

Furthermore, the Court rejected the respondent's argument that Ontario was forum non conveniens, noting that Ontario was the acknowledged appropriate forum for the appellant's support claims.